The Iraq War and MoveOnby Norman Solomon
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 19, 2005

The
day after Wednesday night’s nationwide vigils, the big headline at the top
of the MoveOn.org home page said: “Support Cindy Sheehan.” But MoveOn does
not support Cindy Sheehan’s call for swift withdrawal of U.S. troops from
Iraq.

Many groups were important to the success of
the Aug. 17 vigils, but the online powerhouse MoveOn was the largest and
most prominent. After a long stretch of virtual absence from Iraq war
issues, the organization deserves credit for getting re-involved in recent
months. But the disconnects between MoveOn and much of the grassroots
antiwar movement are disturbing.

Part of the problem is MoveOn’s routine
fuzziness about the war -- and the way that the group is inclined to water
down the messages of antiwar activism, much of which is not connected to
the organization.

Consider how the MoveOn website summarized
the vigils: “Last night, tens of thousands of supporters gathered at 1,625
vigils to acknowledge the sacrifices made by Cindy Sheehan, her son Casey
and the more than 1,800 brave American men and women who have given their
lives in Iraq -- and their moms and families.” Such a gloss excludes a key
reason why many people participated in the vigils: They wanted to express
clear opposition to any further U.S. involvement in the war.

Despite its high-profile role in the vigils
this week, MoveOn is still not giving a high priority to addressing the
Iraq war in its ongoing work. When I went to the MoveOn website today and
looked at its roster of “Current Campaigns,” just a single item on the
list was focused on Iraq -- and that one, from June, involved “demanding
that Bush address the evidence in the ‘Downing Street Memo.’”

The political action wing of MoveOn has
committed itself to supporting congressional legislation, co-sponsored by
Reps. Walter Jones and Neil Abercrombie, which would require the president
to start withdrawing troops from Iraq ... by October 2006.

In contrast, MoveOn never supported Rep.
Lynn Woolsey’s resolution, introduced early this year, stating that, “the
president should develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate
withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq.” Nor has MoveOn gotten behind Rep. Barbara Lee’s more recent bill to prevent the
establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

What if MoveOn were to directly ask its 3
million members (people who’ve signed up for its e-mailings) whether they
favor the idea of waiting till autumn 2006 before the start of U.S. troop
withdrawal from Iraq -- or whether, on the other hand, those members would
prefer that withdrawal get underway before the end of this year? I believe
that most MoveOn members would opt for the latter scenario. But MoveOn
policy is set by a few individuals who have not been willing to put such
options in front of members for a vote.

On Tuesday, the day before the vigils, Cindy
Sheehan said in a conference call that the Jones-Abercrombie timeline is
“not soon enough.” She doesn’t see any good reason to continue the U.S.
military occupation; she’s opposed to any delay in pulling out. And while
it’s all well and good for MoveOn to tell people to “Support Cindy
Sheehan,” the MoveOn leadership should publicly explain why the
organization refuses to join her in supporting a swift withdrawal of all
U.S. troops from Iraq.

During the next few weeks, MoveOn will have
an opportunity to devote some of its appreciable resources to
strengthening the antiwar movement. With an umbrella theme of “End the War
on Iraq -- Bring the Troops Home Now,” protests in Washington and
elsewhere are on the calendar for Sept. 24-26. The national coalition
United for Peace & Justice is playing a key role in creating momentum for
those demonstrations, which will begin an autumn of historic antiwar
activism. Hopefully, MoveOn will catch up with its grassroots base and get
involved in a supportive way.